2015 (6) TMI 577 - HC - Central Excise

Duty evasion - Attachment of property - Denial of request to cross-examine two persons whose statements have been relied upon by the Revenue - Held that - In the light of the admitted position and emanating from the appellant that its properties and assets are attached, we are of the view that in the circumstances peculiar to the assessee the direction contained in paras 9.1 and 9.2 of the order under challenge need not be given effect to. The same stands substituted with a direction from us that the attachment levied on the properties of the appellant by the Revenue shall continue till the Commissioner (Appeals) gives effect to the Tribunal s order. - Revenue not to take any further steps in pursuance to this attachment including to sell attached properties. However, we direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal remanded to him by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This would be a fair order and would meet the ends of justice - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Tribunal's order passed in absence of the appellant and Advocate
2. Imposition of condition of payment of entire amount of duty by Tribunal
3. Failure to allow cross-examination of key witnesses by Adjudicating Authority
4. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals)
5. Tribunal's decision to remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for rehearing and redetermination
6. Tribunal's imposition of conditional order for stay on coercive measures by Revenue
7. Dispute over the fairness and reasonableness of the Tribunal's order
8. Appellant's assets being attached by Revenue for recovery purposes
9. Substitution of Tribunal's direction by High Court regarding attachment of appellant's properties
10. High Court's directive to Commissioner (Appeals) for expeditious disposal of the appeal

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Tribunal's order passed in their absence, arguing that the Tribunal should not have imposed a condition of payment of the entire duty amount while remanding the matter to the lower Appellate Authority. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's order was unreasonable and arbitrary, not favoring them but imposing burdensome conditions.

2. The Tribunal's order stemmed from a show cause notice alleging duty evasion by the appellant, based on statements of key individuals. The appellant's request to cross-examine these individuals was ignored by the Adjudicating Authority, leading to confirmation of the demand by the Additional Commissioner and subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. The Tribunal, deciding the matter in the absence of the appellant and Advocate, allowed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's right to natural justice in meeting the contents of the relied-upon statements. The Tribunal remanded the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) for rehearing and redetermination.

4. Concerns arose regarding the Tribunal's imposition of a conditional order for stay on coercive measures by the Revenue, with the appellant arguing that such conditions rendered the remand proceedings ineffective if not met. The fairness and reasonableness of the Tribunal's order were disputed between the parties.

5. The High Court, after perusing the Tribunal's order and considering the appellant's assets being attached by the Revenue for recovery, substituted the Tribunal's direction regarding the attachment. The High Court directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal expeditiously within three months, ensuring fairness and justice in the process.

6. The High Court clarified that its order did not express any opinion on the merits of the controversy, keeping all contentions open for both sides. The Court emphasized that the appellant was not denied the opportunity to meet the Revenue's case, maintaining openness on this issue.

← Previous Next →